Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 101093	2009-07-01 09:44:00	Seabed & forshore	gary67 (56)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
787894	2009-07-01 21:01:00	Its just another former labor government cock up legislation. National will do the right thing and repeal the act. It will strengthen Maori support of the National government and cause grief to the idiot labor party. Maori can own the foreshore they can get compensated for any losses its not a big deal. All we Anglos want is unfettered access to any beach which will be enshrined in the next law.	prefect (6291)
787895	2009-07-01 22:14:00	The legislation was a panicked knee-jerk reaction by the last Labour government, and was completely unnecessary. While I'm not a lawyer, I did read the proposed Foreshore & Seabed Act back in 2004. The Court of Appeal ruling did NOT give Maori title to the foreshore & seabed - it only gave them the right to present their case to the Maori Land Court (MLC). Unfortunately the way the media has covered the topic has given Maori the false impression that they own the foreshore & seabed (which was not what the Court of Appeal said), and given the rest of New Zealand the impression that vast areas of the foreshore & seabed will become owned by Maori and thus access denied to ordinary beachgoers. The test to prove customary title is very tough. You have to prove continuous use of a section of foreshore & seabed since 1840, as well as a raft of other conditions. This means that the only iwi/hapu who could possibly claim title to sections of the foreshore and seabed would be the ones in remote areas, such as the Marlborough case, or in some areas of the East Coast (for example) where families have lived on coastal land for for generations. In reality, there would only be tiny "chunks" of the seabed and foreshore which would end up being "owned" by iwi/hapu - the impact on the rest of us would have been negligible. I have a suspicion that the reason this review has recommended against a straight repeal of the act, and suggested some sort of settlement process, is because they acknowledge that it will be very difficult for iwi and hapu to successfully argue their case in court. The "softer" approach of negotiated settlements is more likely to end up being beneficial to the Maori groups, than if they had to actually present their case to the MLC. I'm an advocate of simply repealing the act, and letting due process through our courts take place. Edit: This is probably one of very few cases in which I actually agree with roddy_boy.	somebody (208)
787896	2009-07-02 03:29:00	Blame the National Party for that under Jim Bolger. :) I put Bolger and Key in same class,twirps,Brash was my man.	Cicero (40)
787897	2009-07-02 04:39:00	The existing legislation should remain as is. And the riparian rights attached to some existing properties should also be abolished. After all, why should one group of immigrants' descendants be able to claim more rights than any other - all New Zealanders are either recent immigrants or descended from previous immigrants (that includes present day Maori). Let us have a country with equal rights for all residents.	rodb (1561)
787898	2009-07-02 04:48:00	Let us have a country with equal rights for all residents. Tui.... Somebody stole your billboard.	Peterj116 (6762)
787899	2009-07-02 04:57:00	The existing legislation should remain as is. And the riparian rights attached to some existing properties should also be abolished. After all, why should one group of immigrants' descendants be able to claim more rights than any other - all New Zealanders are either recent immigrants or descended from previous immigrants (that includes present day Maori). Let us have a country with equal rights for all residents. That would be the case if a do gooder group didn't pander to them.	Cicero (40)
787900	2009-07-02 14:04:00	The existing legislation should remain as is. And the riparian rights attached to some existing properties should also be abolished. After all, why should one group of immigrants' descendants be able to claim more rights than any other - all New Zealanders are either recent immigrants or descended from previous immigrants (that includes present day Maori). Let us have a country with equal rights for all residents. I feel that no one who has posted in this thread so far actually understands anything surrounding this law and its review. I rest my case.	roddy_boy (4115)
787901	2009-07-02 20:29:00	I rest my case. I am impressed with the insight of some 14 year olds.!	Cicero (40)
787902	2009-07-02 23:56:00	The legislation was a panicked knee-jerk reaction by the last Labour government, and was completely unnecessary. While I'm not a lawyer, I did read the proposed Foreshore & Seabed Act back in 2004. The Court of Appeal ruling did NOT give Maori title to the foreshore & seabed - it only gave them the right to present their case to the Maori Land Court (MLC). Unfortunately the way the media has covered the topic has given Maori the false impression that they own the foreshore & seabed (which was not what the Court of Appeal said), and given the rest of New Zealand the impression that vast areas of the foreshore & seabed will become owned by Maori and thus access denied to ordinary beachgoers. The test to prove customary title is very tough. You have to prove continuous use of a section of foreshore & seabed since 1840, as well as a raft of other conditions. This means that the only iwi/hapu who could possibly claim title to sections of the foreshore and seabed would be the ones in remote areas, such as the Marlborough case, or in some areas of the East Coast (for example) where families have lived on coastal land for for generations. In reality, there would only be tiny "chunks" of the seabed and foreshore which would end up being "owned" by iwi/hapu - the impact on the rest of us would have been negligible. I have a suspicion that the reason this review has recommended against a straight repeal of the act, and suggested some sort of settlement process, is because they acknowledge that it will be very difficult for iwi and hapu to successfully argue their case in court. The "softer" approach of negotiated settlements is more likely to end up being beneficial to the Maori groups, than if they had to actually present their case to the MLC. I'm an advocate of simply repealing the act, and letting due process through our courts take place. Edit: This is probably one of very few cases in which I actually agree with roddy_boy. Thanks Somebody......great info, as I certainly dont support yet another Maori claim which excludes the majority of the country or hands out yet more millions to a minority where it doesnt appear to filter down to those it was meant too.	SolMiester (139)
787903	2009-07-03 00:18:00	I don't like the idea of Maoris having guardian ship over the seabed. Because eventually it will come back to bite us. They will want to ban people from it or start charging etc. But then again I also don't like the idea of people such as the millionaire who owns half of Waiheke Island banning people from the beach there ! Be aware that Maoris work on the bit by bit principal. You get a bit here and a bit there and then it adds up and then you can build on that etc etc. Eg they got us to give in to Maori being an official language (even tho it only has 400 words) Then they can say that they are allowed to speak Maori in Court and Parliament as it is an "official" language. Then they could say that all education should be given in Maori and English as Maori is an official language. And so on. Do you get my point ?	Digby (677)
1 2 3 4 5